![$vboptions[bbtitle]](images/master_col.bmp)
Reply With QuoteContact the webmaster for a start and speak to them.
Other than that, I'd be flattered and bask in the glory, then ask for some kind of payment!! haha!
Jamie x
What the hell??
http://www.howtojive.com/
They have a picture of me and zara?!?!
I gave no consent for this... not really sure wat to do about it to be fair...
Contact the webmaster for a start and speak to them.
Other than that, I'd be flattered and bask in the glory, then ask for some kind of payment!! haha!
Jamie x
Re: Famous with out consent?
That's a great shot. At least you don't have the inane toothy grin most DVD covers and sites seem to love! Any idea where it was taken mate?
you love it really Kyron, dont make out ya dont.Originally Posted by Vegetable
And LOOK AT THAT HAT.... XXXX - cool, sexy and just plain gorgeous.
I thnk you'll find the photographer holds the copyright, so as long as they gave permission for it to be used, you have no say.
If you were in the background somewhere I'd say let it go - but it looks from the photo that you're supporting their product.
So maybe you could put to them that having the photo on their website gives that perception.
Have you checked to see if you're in their video? cos you could possibly say that it looks like false advertising on their part if they use your photograph (from the info above I'm presuming the photo is of you with the hat).
I remember this photo being taken, it was at BritRock and it was in a 'made-up' booth by a 'professional photographer' and I believe you posed for it.
Does Zara know about it ?? Who commission the shoot ? Did you buy it ? If you did doesn't that give you ownership of it ??
If it doesn't, does that mean you could find any photos from professional photographers sold to the press etc ??????
BTW - The photo is labelled as 'swing dancers' which you are not ????
Last edited by Minnie M; 11th-January-2008 at 07:59 AM.
--ooOoo--
Age is a question of mind over matter, if you don't mind, it doesn't matter
Leroy (Satchel) Paige (1906-1982)
Mickey Mouse's girlfriend, Minnie, made her film debut, along with Mickey, in "Steamboat Willie" on November 18, 1928.
That date is recognized as her official birthday.
If it was take in a public place anyone can use the photo you see the same with holiday companies brochures
also if you havent bought the negatives you do not own copyright the photographer does
having said that modeling is big business and normally you would sign a model consent form if the picture was going to be used in a publication unless of course the photographer was paparazzi
Standard photgraphers contracts are on the lines of:-
Model release / license to reproduce - the client agrees to grant the photographers absolute rights to use the photographic images for any form of reproduction including display and promotional purposes by the photographers, advertising, press, editorial or for licensing to third party’s for reproduction in any form or media.
My understanding of this sort of clause (never seen one with the 3rd party mentioned befored) is that the photographer can use if for their promotions etc – however in this case – LeRoc isn’t the photographer, I would have thought that as the commissioning of the photo was a private contract between the photographer and Veg and Zara that LeRoc have no right to be using the photo with out their consent – if it was a photo from the actual comp that would be different…..
Veg if you are very unhappy with the image of u being used you have every right to write to the webmaster and ask them to take down the image.
If you go further into the website i.e. clicking on the side menus you will find other well known jivers such as Roger Chin etc....
the majority of those are also studio shots - would be interesting to know if the people in the photos know they are being used....
I’d agree if this was the 1970s
However for 2008 write to the web master get it taken down and sue for distress/embarrassment
Unable to work for next 5 yrs etc etc
If they are studio shots by a professional I'm sure their "terms of photo blurb" would have stated that the photos are theirs and all you get out of it is a copy. I think thats fairly standard with pro photographers.
Talking of which does anyone know ESG website ?
Trying to find as want to look at some pics of me and other half he took at Ashtons
could see it mention on ceroc website
Zat's r-r-right, Stanley.
There is no principle in english law that anyone owns their own image. Imagine the difficulties if, on taking a photograph on the beach, you had to rush around getting permission of everyone in the background (or even just those who could be identified in the final print.)
It's reasonably well established, however, that if you are a professional, you enjoy some rights of control over your own image. However, it must be fairly obvious that those rights are pretty limited otherwise we wouldn't see OK, Hello, Ola, Goodbye, Sad Celebrity Addict magazine and others on our shelves (or OK, at any rate, would be a lot slimmer).
The sort of rights would be 'career' rights. OK might be OK publishing a picture of Jamie Oliver shopping in Harrods food hall and joking about his public endorsement of Sainsuburys, but if Harrods tried to use the picture in their own advertising that could lead to legal repercussions.
If Vegetable has professional dance interests which might be compromised by the use of his image in this way, he may have a cause of action so long as he didn't inadvertently give the photographer some form of release. Otherwise, he has to grin and bear it.
If the release is by implication - something like a small 'Terms and Conditions' by a photo booth that simply says "the photographer retains the right to the images" and "by posing the customer agrees to these terms..." that might not be enough to defend the photographer if the aforesaid person with a professional interest was compromised by the use to which the photograph is put. That is why professional photographers who have any intention to use their photographs in any other way than selling prints to the photographed, they will (or should) use a 'release' contract.
No reason why Vegetable shouldn't try a polite letter; however, a confrontational 'cease and desist' letter is not advisable!
When I did my photography course Waaaaaay back I remember a whole section (I use the term "remember" in it's loosest possible interpretation there) about photo "law" and model release forms.
If I, as a photographer, were taking photographs in a studio of a model then I would need them (the onus on me the photographer and not the model) to sign a Model release form claiming that I , the photographer, had rights of distribution of those images.
It's been a while, I'm not a professional photographer, and the law side of things was the most boring (and therefore most forgettable) parts of the course. It may also have changed as well.
I'd still go with Barry's Advice though.. Lawyer Vs unemployed geek? I think his advice holds more water
Hey! I like the new picture.you love it really Kyron, dont make out ya dont.
And LOOK AT THAT HAT.... XXXX - cool, sexy and just plain gorgeous.
Blonde hair too - how many IQ points did you settle on?
my understanding of this is that photos taken in a public place are different to those taken within an offical sitting.... well in Australia at least - a friend was looking into the legality of street photography... and if it was ok to take photos of people on the street with out their permission - it is as long as they are in a public place - no expectation of privacy...
danceportraits
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks